Operating Systems > Linux and UNIX

Something I dont get with all these different versions of Linux

<< < (3/6) > >>

lazygamer:
There's gotta be more differences then that. I've taken Libranet for a spin, it ownz Mandrake! If the distros are the same mostly, why does Libranet run nice, and Mandrake doesn't? You can even notice the difference right from the KDE GUI loading screen, it takes 3 or 4 times longer on Mandrake. Strangely, Libranet seems like it might take longer to boot up then Mandrake. 2 minutes and 30 seconds. What's with Linux and silly boot times? Your code is not a pile of shit, so why take so long to wake up? My only guess is Windows acheives such good load times only on half-decent systems(433 celeron for example) and/or it cuts out alot of stuff that would take too long to load. So this could be why windows is shoddy, doesen't spend enough time preparing for the day.

I actually wish Libranet would go faster(because it's Linux see, I have huge expectations), but if you want user friendliness, ya gotta make compromises. Suppose I wanted the most fastest possible distro out there, user friendliness is not a requirement, what would I use? Hint:No matter how l33t I become, making my own distro by compiling stuff is a no-no for a long time.

PS:Before I hit the big book and study like a good little geek, how do I add a user in Libranet? Root works fine, but Libranet doesn't seem to be as easy as Mandrake to add a new user.

creedon:

quote:Originally posted by lazygamer:
There's gotta be more differences then that. I've taken Libranet for a spin, it ownz Mandrake! If the distros are the same mostly, why does Libranet run nice, and Mandrake doesn't? You can even notice the difference right from the KDE GUI loading screen, it takes 3 or 4 times longer on Mandrake. Strangely, Libranet seems like it might take longer to boot up then Mandrake. 2 minutes and 30 seconds. What's with Linux and silly boot times? Your code is not a pile of shit, so why take so long to wake up? My only guess is Windows acheives such good load times only on half-decent systems(433 celeron for example) and/or it cuts out alot of stuff that would take too long to load. So this could be why windows is shoddy, doesen't spend enough time preparing for the day.

I actually wish Libranet would go faster(because it's Linux see, I have huge expectations), but if you want user friendliness, ya gotta make compromises. Suppose I wanted the most fastest possible distro out there, user friendliness is not a requirement, what would I use? Hint:No matter how l33t I become, making my own distro by compiling stuff is a no-no for a long time.

PS:Before I hit the big book and study like a good little geek, how do I add a user in Libranet? Root works fine, but Libranet doesn't seem to be as easy as Mandrake to add a new user.
--- End quote ---


LazyGamer; check the other thread; use adminmenu; it allows you to do about 90% of your admin tasks from the desktop (including adding users, recompiling a kernel, setting up a printer, doing scsi emulation for CD-burners, etc.)  It's the nicest admin tool around, and it works at the CLI; it's at /usr/bin/adminmenu; that way, if X fucks up, it's easy to reconfigure.

choasforages:
umm, compiling your own distro is the way to go, but you need weeks to do it right, and to figure out what libs are required by what and how to builld those libs. and tricks like this bit of wonder

mv /usr/bin/ld /usr/bin/ld.org
then put

this in /usr/bin/ld

exec /usr/bin/ld.orig -z combreloc "$@"


hmmm, there is a reason that ChoasNETOS runs fast...

Calum:
can i just add? with ref to original post. A lot of biggie 'linux' programs are not, as stated by voidmain, in the care of companies at all. [edit - i mean voidmain stated it before but i want to agree with him] leave it to companies and we'd all be running windows 98. a large amount are maintained by individuals and organisations, many are GNU software which means that the fantastic Free Software Foundation have taken it upon themselves to come up with a decent open source version of a commercial product.

Also, with question d) you may get one distro, but you shoul dbe able to easily compile and install programs that didn't come with the system. Of course you know this, and with windows it goes without saying since it comes with nearly no programs on it. with linux though, the system comes with tons of shit preinstalled so people could be forgiven for thinking that that's it and they can't install any more stuff.

just my one pence worth!   :D

[ August 28, 2002: Message edited by: Calum ]

voidmain:
LG, do you think each and every distro has their own branch of KDE? No, they all come from the same source. Now boot times depend on a lot of things. The most drastic difference could be what services/daemons are started prior to loading the GUI. This is all configurable and some distros load WAY more than they need to on a default install.

Learn your particular distro's boot methods and turn off all the unnecessary services/daemons. And it will free up memory and processor as well. For instance, RedHat uses the SysV init method of starting services (as do most Linuxes). You will find a /etc/rc.d directory containing an init.d subdirectory and a subdirectory for each run level,

Now on all SysV systems (including Solaris, etc) you can manipulate the scripts (or links to scripts from the init.d directory) manually. However, usually there is a distro specific way of manipulating those services that make your life easier. There are the "chkconfig" and "service" commands in RedHat. Most distros include the "tksysv" graphical tool, or other graphical tools.

The majority of the base software for all distros come from the same sources though. Like I said, if you know the "nuts and bolts" of one you will not have a problem with any of them. That usually means not using/relying on the distro specific configuration tools.

[ August 28, 2002: Message edited by: VoidMain ]

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page